Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

What is the most over rated scope from the 60's and 70's era.

  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#151 clamchip

clamchip

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,367
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 08 May 2021 - 06:01 PM

Celestron founder Tom Johnson when interviewed about why orange:

"Just different and controversial. The color scheme came from the Mauna Kea Telescope."

http://www.ifa.hawai...er-public.shtml

 

Robert 


Edited by clamchip, 08 May 2021 - 06:05 PM.

  • RichA, Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and 3 others like this

#152 GUS.K

GUS.K

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,017
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Australia.

Posted 08 May 2021 - 06:37 PM

I remember the Celestron catalogues from the early eighties, I loved the orange colour scheme, dreamed of owning one, but I was still at school so no chance. A couple of years later, rebuilt an eq mounted reflector into a dob and painted it orange, didn't quite have the same appeal.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_20210509_0916187518 (2).jpg

  • clamchip, Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and 4 others like this

#153 LukaszLu

LukaszLu

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2020
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 08 May 2021 - 06:46 PM

Celestron founder Tom Johnson when interviewed about why orange:

"Just different and controversial. The color scheme came from the Mauna Kea Telescope."

http://www.ifa.hawai...er-public.shtml

 

Robert 

That's exactly what I meant: "it's not an ordinary telescope like many others, but ... an orange Celestron"... :-)


  • clamchip likes this

#154 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,871
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 08 May 2021 - 07:21 PM

I’ve told this story before, but I hope it’s worth repeating.

 

About 1968 or so I saw a C-8 for the first time. It was in a display case at the Franklin Institute, Phila. I wanted one right then and there. I read about them, followed the ads and saved my money. It was $1,000 back then, surely a lot of money but other expenses were low, so I bought one from Edmunds about ‘70 or so.

 

It was a good scope, but I saw nothing jaw-dropping through it. The moon was great, and the planets good, but not outstanding. Plus the sky was much better than now but still not real dark.

 

In the early ‘70s there were 2 consecutive and very favorable oppositions of Mars. For one of them the club I was in, Willingboro Astronomical Society, had a ‘bring your scope’ to look at Mars in the parking lot of the club. So I did. I set up and observed Mars, the detail was good and one of the best views I had seen to that point.

 

Next to me was a gent with an 8” Newt on a heavy equatorial mount. A lot of scope to lug around I thought. He asked if he could look through my C-8, and offered me a look through his Newt. Sure.

 

When I looked through the Newt at Mars, my jaw dropped. Unbelievable detail, color, contrast. Many times better than the C-8. The guy must have seen the look on my face and said the difference must be because of the large secondary obstruction. I thought it was more than just that. Not long after I sold the C-8 and got a 10” Cave. Another story.

 

 

In that case you would have to say that the C-8 was mediocre at best. And, the original hype was just that and they were much over-rated. That said, many, many were sold and they changed the telescope industry of the time.

 

Looking back and knowing what I do today about collimation and how important it is to good performance in an SCT and Mak, I have to wonder if the C-8 back then was collimated well enough to give the finest views possible. All most of us knew about collimation was to look in the eyepiece holder, without an eyepiece, and adjust the screws on the secondary so that the secondary shadow was centered in the primary mirror reflection. That was it!

 

Today we know that is not nearly accurate enough to collimate the scope. So, I’d have to say in all fairness, the bad rap on SCTs at the time was at least partially due to the lack of understanding of collimation and lack of accurate procedures to do so. Now we have exacting methods that will get SCTs spot on to get the most possible from them.

 

Attached File  SCT Collimation(1).pdf   163.5KB   20 downloads

 

Still over-rated? Maybe, maybe not so much. I don’t know.  shrug.gif

 

 

ADDED: Myself and the club and club members all were very close to the Edmund Scientific retail store. I loved going there any chance I could.

 

But, to the guys with the biggest and best scopes, Edmund’s products were considered meh! The gold standard to them was Cave. An 8”, 10” Cave was the best of the best.

 

They would buy the scope, immediately take off the clock drive and replace it with a large diameter Buyers drive. And none of them would ever consider an SCT, or as they called them, ‘Suitcase Telescopes.’ lol.gif

 

 


Edited by Joe1950, 08 May 2021 - 11:24 PM.

  • Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and davidc135 like this

#155 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 09 May 2021 - 06:12 AM

I never knew there was a C8 in 1968. I know they had a 4",6" 10", 12",16" and on and on. Then that one off  axis job.



#156 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,871
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted 09 May 2021 - 07:45 AM

I can’t be sure of the exact year Chas. It could have been later. The one I saw at the Franklin Institute may have been a pre-production prototype. I don’t think it was for sale at that time. Anyway it was about those times +/- 5 years. grin.gif


Edited by Joe1950, 09 May 2021 - 07:47 AM.


#157 Kasmos

Kasmos

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,744
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2015
  • Loc: So Cal

Posted 09 May 2021 - 01:35 PM

IIRC, the C8 we all know came out in 1970, but there was a mechanically different blue and white version before that which was sometimes used as a guide scope on a larger instrument.


  • Joe1950 likes this

#158 DrAstro

DrAstro

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 09 May 2021 - 02:04 PM

I'm taking a different direction...

 

The worse telescope of the 70s is the Russian 238 inches (6 m), Bolshoi Teleskop Azimutal'ny (Large Altazimuth Telescope), or the BTA-6 as it is referred to.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTA-6

 

Big yes, but placed on a terrible site for astronomy, so it never lived up to its full potential. It did have some firsts, mainly being Alt/Az with a field rotator, which is very common in large (even smaller) telescopes today.

 

But it was built for one purpose, to upstage the venerable 200" Hale telescope at the Palomar Observatory. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Hale_Telescope

 

the BTA held the world's largest distinction till 1993 when the 10M Keck in Hawaii came online.


  • Joe1950 likes this

#159 bjkaras

bjkaras

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 24 May 2019
  • Loc: Back and forth between Santa Clara, CA and Las Vegas, NV

Posted 12 May 2021 - 06:23 PM

I would not say that Unitron and Cave were mass market like Celestron and meade.  Both Unitron and Cave were very small shops compared to Meade and Celestron.

Cave was definitely not mass market. Their shop was very small and their showroom even smaller. It was more like a small waiting room. I remember going there to pick up my scope in 1972, and Tom Cave came out and personally checked me out on it. He went over behind the counter and picked out three eyepieces and put them in a box for me.


  • astro140, starman876, steve t and 3 others like this

#160 bierbelly

bierbelly

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,877
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2004
  • Loc: Stephens City, VA

Posted 13 May 2021 - 07:10 PM

I can see this might be turning into a Quester thread.

IMO, when it comes to a “price/performance value proposition”, the Quester is absolutely overrated.

However…

Questars are valued for reasons other than on a pure price/performance scale. Questars deliver: portability, an observatory in a box, convenience, the elegance of a beautiful and functional instrument, quality optics, craftsmanship, pride of ownership and many other more intrinsic attributes that Questar owners will, I’m sure, add. And judged on those criterions, Questars are not overrated and are much valued by their happy owners.

Back in the day, Questar offered its beautiful compact design as an alternative to the 3 and 4” F15 achromats of the day, which in comparison to the small and compact Q were behemoths. Today, as an alternative to those long FL achromats, the apochromatic refractor, with its versatility and more compact tube, has mitigated Quester’s value proposition.

Would I like to own a Questar – you bet! But only if someone left one to me in his or her will. I happen to value other things more than what Questar offers. But many others appreciate what Quester offers as being of value and just right for them.

Bob


Porter Garden...

#161 bjkaras

bjkaras

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 24 May 2019
  • Loc: Back and forth between Santa Clara, CA and Las Vegas, NV

Posted 18 June 2021 - 12:50 AM

Love my Cave Student 6" f8 OTA, but it sure is a fight to have a good observing experience with the mount.  Would have to agree there.   

I had that same scope back in the day, but I never had any issues with the mount. If you adjusted the clutch on the drive it didn't stick too much.



#162 RichA

RichA

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 19 June 2021 - 10:52 AM

I never think of that brand for some reason.   Just cost too much like AP scopes so they never cross my mind. I have a cut off in my head on what i will pay for a scope and there are some rare scopes i will pay well above a fair price to have.  Say there was a insane super sharp mint fork mounted C14 for sale, i would offer a price well above what the avg would be.

This is why i was never a AP fan. Since owners are selling their used AP's for over new prices.  There are other brands that do just as well and cost much less. A good old Tak does the job at 4 times less the price.

Some Taks like the 4 inch units are cheaper, some are not.



#163 RichA

RichA

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 19 June 2021 - 10:55 AM

Great posting.  I agree, purely subjective.  Believe it or not, I actually read HERE in a posting by an obvious HERETIC, that Pumpkin Orange Celestron SCTs from the '70s were NOT so hot to look at!!  When I read that BLASPHEMY I almost fell back in my chair, choked on my Hostess Ding Dongs, while spitting out my coffee, before my head slammed to the floor, giving me a concussion ALL in the span of 3 seconds.

 

Where is the punishment room on this forum??  Where is the Jar that is required to be filled with cash fines when someone here makes such utterly offensive comments??  That's what I'd like to know. 

Luckily, there happened to be paramedics standing in my doorway when I read the offensive comments Dissing My PUMPKIN ORANGE C5, C8, and C14, because they slapped the paddles on me and brought me back to consciousness. 

 

Otherwise you might be reading my obituary. 

 

Can you just imagine how many people read the offensive commentary regarding Pumpkin orange Celestrons who were NOT lucky enough to have paramedics with a defibrillator nearby?? 

 

I'm still trying to get over it, as the Effigy that I hung in my backyard (of the offending party) when I read those comments yesterday, just didn't cut it for me. 

 

I'm STILL as mad as a hornet!!  

 

mad.gif

 

I'll do my best to get over it! 

Click-whirrr-click, "My Cel-es-tron scopes must be like my...carrr, black or grey or white are only accept-able col-ors,"  click-whirrr-click.



#164 Stew44

Stew44

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,242
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2014

Posted 19 June 2021 - 05:36 PM

Someone in this industry I know used to say that the Questar was state-of-the-art 1954 technology unhampered by progress

I'm reminded of a Volkswagen commercial where in a game show a contestant is asked how many changes there were in the new Volkswagon Beetle.  He looked the car over and said "None!  A Volkswagon never changes."

 

Here are the changes made to the Volkswagon Beetle from 1949 through 1979. 

 

https://www.thegolde.../beetle_changes

 

Questars haven't changed this much but they have continually improved in mechanical and optical quality and added features and accessories.

 

We perhaps ought to look at value, but there are some things where the attitude is one of non-compromising quality.  Braymer lived that commitment and his company follows that philosphy today.  I paid well over $5k for an AP f/5 Stowaway (First Run).  Can't think of one thing I didn't enjoy about that telescope.  Optics and mechanicals were perfect.  But that required a mount.  Didn't work too well as a monocular.  Did move it along though and think I got back what I paid for it.  I don't recall ever losing money on a Questar, and I've bought and sold many.  Can't think of much I didn't like about them, except like all Maks, they need some time to settle when outdoor temps are significantly different from inside.  Rarely have I seen exposure to weather effects on any of my Questars.   I guess dollar to inch of aperture might be high, but the portability of the scope more than offsets that in my opinion.  Even OTI found that their Q4 was just a little too big to encourage movement of market share from Questar.  Braymer had the basic telescope so very right.  In that aspect the Questar is pretty much timeless.  So, only overated if you think you can replace one with an ETX.  lol.gif


Edited by Stew44, 19 June 2021 - 05:38 PM.

  • Terra Nova and Bomber Bob like this

#165 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 19 June 2021 - 05:46 PM

I could never buy into paying so much for a 3.5" Q when a old school 8" F/8 Newt for my viewing was so much better for 10 times less the price.


  • Don W and Bowlerhat like this

#166 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,487
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: The middle of nowhere, USA

Posted 19 June 2021 - 09:17 PM

I could never buy into paying so much for a 3.5" Q when a old school 8" F/8 Newt for my viewing was so much better for 10 times less the price.

So, why buy a Corvette when a Chevette will get you there for a mere fraction of the price?

 

I just read through this thread in its entirety. And yes, it's a subject that's been thoroughly beat to death. Still, I decided to throw in my two cents worth, since that's about all I have left after buying a second-hand Questar...

 

First, I would like to say (my opinion, of course), the only thing over-rated about the old orange C8 was the 1/20th wave optical certificate. Then again, who really cares at this point? Old news. I had my pumpkin out last night and once again, had to remind myself that I would be a complete idiot to ever let it go. The SCT, as is the case with all scopes, is a compromise. An extremely short focus spherical primary with a huge built in set of eyeglasses to correct the issues related to having a very short focus spherical primary. What this did was to create an OTA of respectable size and performance. I can easily carry the fork-mounted OTA in one hand, and the beautifully designed locking triangle tripod in the other. I leave an f6.3 telecompressor in place, along with a loaded four eyepiece turret, so for all practical purposes, it behaves like a long range microscope. It does have a rather large CO, which does reduce contrast on targets such as Jupiter. Still, it's no slouch. And, as I've mentioned before, on high contrast targets such as Saturn, I've pushed the magnification up to 566x with almost no perceptible image breakdown, and was able to see the Encke Gap with very little difficulty. Of course, the nights that allow that kind of magnification are few and far between. Still, nights allowing 200x to 240x are not so unusual around here, and that's just cruising speed for the old C8.

 

I will add that my 12" Meade LX200 OTA, although outside the window of time specified by this thread, weighs about forty pounds. So, if a person can lift a five gallon water bottle to chest height, a 12" SCT should not present much of a challenge. All I can say is that my sixty-some odd year frame, bad back and all, is not that intimidated.

 

As for Celestron orange, I also have a C90 Astro and a C90 Spotter. Both are very orange, and both are cuter than a bug's ear. Performance of the Astro, while not quite as good as that of the Questar, is nothing to throw rocks at. It's extremely well built, and heavy enough to fight off a bear if necessary. Once the bear is gone, you can simply carry on where you left off before the bear arrived - it really is that rugged.

 

Although I've not had a huge amount of experience fiddling with Newtonian telescopes, I've had the chance to view through quite a few. A few were rock-stars, and many more were just average performers. A few were absolute dogs. Without having the luxury of spending a few nights hands-on with each, I really can't comment on the less than stellar performers, much as I can't comment on the quality of any other scope that's not mine to do with as I please.

 

I will add that I've really, really, really wanted a Questar pretty much my whole adult life, but could not bring myself to part with the cash required. When one did come up for sale that was within my budget, I made the plunge. After the initial sticker shock, and after the initial elation of finally having acquired my own little slice of perfection, I grew into the experience. It was only then that I realized what it really was that the tiny little Questar had to offer. And, it really is amazing. That being said, the only thing I can add is that you either get it or you don't.

 

Bill

 

Oh, and I might also mention that ninety dollars bought me a rechargeable Lion battery pack with a 110 volt a.c. output. With this, I'm no longer tethered to a rather dangerous extension cord on any of my scopes. As far as I'm concerned - money well spent.


  • steve t, Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and 4 others like this

#167 Brent Campbell

Brent Campbell

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Olympia, WA

Posted 19 June 2021 - 09:43 PM

About 7 years ago I bought an old 12.5 inch star liner.  Carl zambuto tested the mirror for me and it turned out to be a 2 wave mirror with a turned down edge. At great cost I had the mirror refigured by Steve Swaze but ended up selling the scope at a loss. Based on my one mirror example I would say that star liner was really overrated.  Can’t say much about other star liners because. I only owned one.


  • Bonco2 likes this

#168 Bonco2

Bonco2

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 670
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2013

Posted Yesterday, 04:25 PM

You're not the first to report such a thing with Star Liner. I sure liked their mounts. Looked superior to Cave's .

Bill


  • Brent Campbell likes this

#169 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted Yesterday, 04:34 PM

You're not the first to report such a thing with Star Liner. I sure liked their mounts. Looked superior to Cave's .

Bill

I had their 2" shaft mount and it seems the same as the Cave mounts all in all. Same slop in the clutch and drives.  I had them build be a 10" F/8.3 Newt in 1993 just before they closed the door for good. It was great. Mars looked the best in that scope that i have ever seen.  Others have had that same OTA after i sold it and loved it as well.


  • Brent Campbell likes this

#170 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted Yesterday, 04:37 PM

So, why buy a Corvette when a Chevette will get you there for a mere fraction of the price?

 

I just read through this thread in its entirety. And yes, it's a subject that's been thoroughly beat to death. Still, I decided to throw in my two cents worth, since that's about all I have left after buying a second-hand Questar...

 

First, I would like to say (my opinion, of course), the only thing over-rated about the old orange C8 was the 1/20th wave optical certificate. Then again, who really cares at this point? Old news. I had my pumpkin out last night and once again, had to remind myself that I would be a complete idiot to ever let it go. The SCT, as is the case with all scopes, is a compromise. An extremely short focus spherical primary with a huge built in set of eyeglasses to correct the issues related to having a very short focus spherical primary. What this did was to create an OTA of respectable size and performance. I can easily carry the fork-mounted OTA in one hand, and the beautifully designed locking triangle tripod in the other. I leave an f6.3 telecompressor in place, along with a loaded four eyepiece turret, so for all practical purposes, it behaves like a long range microscope. It does have a rather large CO, which does reduce contrast on targets such as Jupiter. Still, it's no slouch. And, as I've mentioned before, on high contrast targets such as Saturn, I've pushed the magnification up to 566x with almost no perceptible image breakdown, and was able to see the Encke Gap with very little difficulty. Of course, the nights that allow that kind of magnification are few and far between. Still, nights allowing 200x to 240x are not so unusual around here, and that's just cruising speed for the old C8.

 

I will add that my 12" Meade LX200 OTA, although outside the window of time specified by this thread, weighs about forty pounds. So, if a person can lift a five gallon water bottle to chest height, a 12" SCT should not present much of a challenge. All I can say is that my sixty-some odd year frame, bad back and all, is not that intimidated.

 

As for Celestron orange, I also have a C90 Astro and a C90 Spotter. Both are very orange, and both are cuter than a bug's ear. Performance of the Astro, while not quite as good as that of the Questar, is nothing to throw rocks at. It's extremely well built, and heavy enough to fight off a bear if necessary. Once the bear is gone, you can simply carry on where you left off before the bear arrived - it really is that rugged.

 

Although I've not had a huge amount of experience fiddling with Newtonian telescopes, I've had the chance to view through quite a few. A few were rock-stars, and many more were just average performers. A few were absolute dogs. Without having the luxury of spending a few nights hands-on with each, I really can't comment on the less than stellar performers, much as I can't comment on the quality of any other scope that's not mine to do with as I please.

 

I will add that I've really, really, really wanted a Questar pretty much my whole adult life, but could not bring myself to part with the cash required. When one did come up for sale that was within my budget, I made the plunge. After the initial sticker shock, and after the initial elation of finally having acquired my own little slice of perfection, I grew into the experience. It was only then that I realized what it really was that the tiny little Questar had to offer. And, it really is amazing. That being said, the only thing I can add is that you either get it or you don't.

 

Bill

 

Oh, and I might also mention that ninety dollars bought me a rechargeable Lion battery pack with a 110 volt a.c. output. With this, I'm no longer tethered to a rather dangerous extension cord on any of my scopes. As far as I'm concerned - money well spent.

I would love a Q3.5 for around $1500. But some are near 4K and a used Tak FS102 is just hard to beat for less money.


  • Brent Campbell and LukaszLu like this

#171 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,487
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: The middle of nowhere, USA

Posted Yesterday, 06:09 PM

I would love a Q3.5 for around $1500. But some are near 4K and a used Tak FS102 is just hard to beat for less money.

If a used standard or duplex were to show up on the open market for $1500, you'd probably only have a few seconds to make up your mind. However, $2000 to $2500 is possible if you're patient.

 

Bill



#172 ltha

ltha

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Bend, Oregon

Posted Yesterday, 11:46 PM

IMO it’s unfair to compare scopes from 50 and 60 years ago to what is available today. What is said about Unitron could be said about the Chevy Corvette. Look at the specs from a 1953 Corvette: 150 HP, 2-speed automatic transmission, drum brakes, etc., compared to today’s Corvette: 495 HP, duel clutch 8-speed trans with paddle shifters, disk brakes all around, etc.

 

I could not agree more. The scopes I owed as a kid back in the 60s did exactly what I hoped they would - took me on voyages to the stars and planets. I bought a 10” mirror kit from Edmund and ground it as best I could as a 12 year old with no one to help. Tom Cave refigured it and the better part of a years worth of mowing lawns and other jobs around the neighborhood allowed me to buy a fiberglass tube from Willard Parks, and a 1.5” shaft mount from Telescopics. Slop in the mount? I did not notice - wasn’t that how they all were back then? I figured out how to work around that and was rewarded by great views of Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon and so many DSOs. The scope and mount worked a kind of magic. 
 

In the intervening years I have owned most of the scopes mentioned here, and to be honest had precious few duds. Back then I had nothing to compare my Cave to, nor the Telescopics mount (probably made by Cave). Night before last I had my current Cave, a 12.75” with Quartz primary out - which Carl Z tested at 1/15.9 wave. Seeing was good and the moon simply stunning. I stayed at the eyepiece lost in the detail as the old Schaefer mount tracked flawlessly. Next night some friends were  over so I rolled out the TEC200ED on a Losmandy HGM-200 with Gemini II. No question the newer mount was a world easier to use given its hand controller and menu options. But the views through both scopes were everything you could ask for. 
 

Astroscan? Mine came from a pawn shop (they thought it was a radio...) just in time to see Halley’s Comet last pass. Questar? My second-hand (third-hand?) Q has become my most used scope. And packed in its Pelican travel case it will be heading for the next total solar eclipse with me. Carried in one hand. SCT? Side-by-side my old blue and white Celestron C-10 ran right with a IntesMicro 10 f/12.5 with 1/9 wave optics tested optics I also owned. I did have one Cave mirror that was terrible, the 6” f/12 that rode on a Cave 12 1/2” Observatory scope I owed. Send it out to be tested and it was 1/2 wave. 

 

Several years ago I had a Cave 8” f/8 Deluxe and a TMB-175 triplet on a Tak NJP mount. Side-by-side the old Cave mount showed its weaknesses. But once both were tracking Saturn or Jupiter you would have been surprised how little the $750 Cave gave up to the $14,000 TMB setup. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • AF15F67E-3B4B-4F69-8C19-BC347C3BDB84.jpeg

Edited by ltha, Today, 07:58 AM.

  • Pete W, mdowns, Bomber Bob and 2 others like this

#173 RichA

RichA

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted Today, 04:00 AM

I could never buy into paying so much for a 3.5" Q when a old school 8" F/8 Newt for my viewing was so much better for 10 times less the price.

Newtonians like you describe reminds most people on sight of something you pour concrete in to cast pillars.  A Questar is visual art as well as being about as good as a scope can get for its design.  You can carry it with one hand, it sets up in a couple minutes, it isn't interfered with by average seeing (the 3.5 inch model) and is a pleasure to use because its precision mechanism works so easily. 



#174 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted Today, 06:02 AM

I could not agree more. The scopes I owed as a kid back in the 60s did exactly what I hoped they would - took me on voyages to the stars and planets. I bought a 10” mirror kit from Edmund and ground it as best I could as a 12 year old with no one to help. Tom Cave refigured it and the better part of a years worth of mowing lawns and other jobs around the neighborhood allowed me to buy a fiberglass tube from Willard Parks, and a 1.5” shaft mount from Telescopics. Slop in the mount? I did not notice - wasn’t that how they all were back then! I figured out how to work around that and was rewarded by great views of Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon and so many DSOs. The scope and mount worked a kind of magic. 
 

In the intervening years I have owned most of the scopes mentioned here, and to be honest had precious few duds. Back then I had nothing to compare my Cave to, nor the Telescopics mount (probably made by Cave). Night before last I had my current Cave, a 12.75” with Quartz primary out - which Carl Z tested at 1/15.9 wave. Seeing was good and the moon simply stunning. I stayed at the eyepiece lost in the detail as the old Schaefer mount tracked flawlessly. Next night some friends were  over so I rolled out the TEC200ED on a Losmandy HGM-200 with Gemini II. No question the newer mount was a world easier to use given its hand controller and menu options. But the views through both scopes were everything you could ask for. 
 

Astroscan? Mine came from a pawn shop (they thought it was a radio...) just in time to see Halley’s Comet last pass. Questar? My second-hand (third-hand?) Q has become my most used scope. And packed in its Pelican travel case it will be heading for the next total solar eclipse with me. Carried in one hand. SCT? Side-by-side my old blue and white Celestron C-10 ran right with a IntesMicro 10 f/12.5 with 1/9 wave optics tested optics I also owned. I did have one Cave mirror that was terrible, the 6” f/12 that rode on a Cave 12 1/2” Observatory scope I owed. Send it out to be tested and it was 1/2 wave. 

 

Several years ago I had a Cave 8” f/8 Deluxe and a TMB-175 triplet on a Tak NJP mount. Side-by-side the old Cave mount showed its weaknesses. But once both were tracking Saturn or Jupiter? You would have been surprised how little the $750 Cave gave up to the $14,000 TMB setup. 

This is why i keep harping on why spend 10 to 30 times as much on a 8" APO that needs a huge mount and weights so much vs a old school slower 8" Newt that cost around 300 to 700 smackers.  The 8" Newt will get you 95% of the same view vs the APO that cost 30k or more with a back breaking big mount.

 

I am not a big APO fan at all as i just can't see spending that kind of money for a scope that a Newt can do for so much less.  Yes the Cave mounts are the big weak link, but the 1.5" mounts did fine for a 8". I am a push to guy and never even use drives when i have them.



#175 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,860
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted Today, 06:05 AM

Newtonians like you describe reminds most people on sight of something you pour concrete in to cast pillars.  A Questar is visual art as well as being about as good as a scope can get for its design.  You can carry it with one hand, it sets up in a couple minutes, it isn't interfered with by average seeing (the 3.5 inch model) and is a pleasure to use because its precision mechanism works so easily. 

Took a peak thru a Q3.5 one time and was just not thrilled.  It was dim deep sky object. I know they are like a fine watch and look great. But a old Vixen 80mm F/11 can pretty much do the same and cost way less.
 


  • LukaszLu likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics